Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

"They do not see their future"

Despite decades in Singapore, the Observer did not appear to realize that Lee Kwan Yu was not unaware of the consequences of female education. From the comments on yesterday's post.

TZ: "Lee Kwan Yu said it was one of his biggest mistakes - educating (to the college level) the women."

TO: I'm a Singaporean born and bred for 26 years, and never heard anything like that. In anything, the PAP government pushed, and still pushes for massive education for everyone, and was a major proponent of abortion and sterilisation in the 70's in an effort to get women out of the household, as well as other measures to destroy extended families. The closest thing I've ever heard him quoted on is that educated women should have more kids, not that they should stop being educated altogether.

This is a good example of why personal experience, even decades of direct personal and relevant experience, should never be overly relied upon when dealing with the historical record. Mr. Lee is an interesting and highly intelligent man, but he was clearly too influenced by the assumptions of the Western elite, whose policies he tried to imitate without thinking through their logical intermediate-term consequences.

“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and
leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what
happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the
next generation. That’s a problem.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1983

"“The successful, whether you’re a scholar, a Mandarin or a successful businessman or successful farmer, you had more than one wife. In fact you can have as many as your economic status entitles you or can persuade people to give their daughters up to you. In other words, the unsuccessful are like the weak lions or bucks in a herd, they were neutralised. So over the generations you must have the physically and the mentally more vibrant and vital, reproduce. We are doing just the opposite. We introduced monogamy. It seems so manifestly correct. The West was successful, superior. Why? Because they are monogamous. It was wrong. It was stupid.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Population and Development Review, Vol. 13 No.1, 1987

“Once you have women educated with equal job opportunities they do not see their future as bearers of children. So fertility rate has gone down, I don’t see it going back to 2.1, which is the replacement rate. The only way it can happen is if you ‘diseducate’ or ‘uneducate’ the women and that doesn’t make sense. The economy will suffer.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 7th anniversary of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 2011

But Mr. Lee is completely wrong about the economy. Economies with educated women are actually correlated with much slower economic growth as well as higher debt, in addition to the much higher levels of immigration that Mr. Lee himself has said are inevitable and necessary as a result of the sub-replacement level fertility rates.

"Among the topics raised was whether the “Stop at Two” campaign launched
in the 1960s had created today’s ageing population and need for incoming
immigrants. Disagreeing, Mr Lee said: “Stopping at two has nothing to
do with what’s happened. It’s happening throughout the developed world.”
Instead, he attributed the current situation to the rising education
levels among women today and economic development. Mr Lee then referred
to a study by the Institute of Policy Studies and emphasised on the need
for immigrants to make up population in view of the projected low
fertility rate of 1.24 per woman."

It is informative to see how Lee's views on the consequences of female education transformed from 1983 to 2011 as a result of witnessing them. He went from "that's a problem" in the theoretical sense to understanding exactly how the problem manifests, although he still didn't grasp the obvious connection between a higher percentage of educated women with equal job opportunities and reduced economic growth. Which is a little strange, because even if you subscribe to the Keynesian idea that demand produces growth, it should be readily apparent that more children means more consumers which means more economic growth.

What appears to be difficult for solipsistic women and their intellectual white knights to understand is that the equal education and opportunity they so value necessarily means a lower standard of living for them and everyone else. That's not because Mr. Lee is sexiss or because I am misogyniss, the observation is no more credibly debatable than the idea that if you drop a ball, gravity will cause it to hit the floor.

"They do not see their future." Mr. Lee could have simply ended his statement there and it would have been equally apt.

31 comments:

Thank you, I stand corrected. So it would appear that our Minister Mentor recognises the problem and has changed his stance since the 70's, but can't, or is unwilling to do anything about it.

Considering the cult of education and credentialism that the PAP government has fostered in the Singaporean populace - and the citizenry gladly embraced, it would be political suicide for the PAP to even suggest that women not seek education. Singaporeans themselves misunderstand the problem - the main demands I've heard from those of my generation and Gen Xers are the usual ones: they want all maternity-related healthcare to be free, free daycare, fully-paid maternity leave, free education up to and including college level...

Essentially, they want the government to bear all the costs of raising kids for them. Blech.

Sadly, it seems that the only solution may be economic and social collapse.

Kudos on not retreating to whether Mr. Lee actually said it was a mistake or not. And I think you're right, your Minister Mentor clearly sees the problem and recognizes his former policies were a mistake after the fact, but he also knows he is no longer in a position to do anything about it.

You could educate women to become homeschoolers. Back in the 1970's they still had "home economics" where cooking and sewing and such were taught. (Full disclosure, I took it as "Chef Shop", and learned useful skills, but even then, boys approach thing differently). Then you wouldn't need a constant stream of immigrants to plug the hole.

Islam is winning because of bloodshed, but the blood is shed by others in abortion clinics, and sanctions - shaming mothers that have more than 2.

As to wanting things "Free", it means someone else paying for it. Nothing is free. They are willing to labor to learn the violin, but not go through labor to bear the next generation. And not be mommy and put their mammary glands to good use, then raise the children to be saints. Theres an industrial factory called daycare or school for that.

Too late, but for a super mommy, I'd subsidize every bit - she would have been the one to insure social security was solvent.

He missed the substance of western (christian) monogamy, but adopted its form. Note we have the same thing - the gay marriages are monogamous.

Christian marriage is about Fatherhood and family. The children are the end. Divorce (and its prohibition) was taken seriously. Fertility was seen as a blessing, barrenness as a curse. Today women take their daily dose of curse in those circular blister packs. In such, Mothers can be revered. Multiple wive are disruptive, divorce-light.

To raise a christian family, it is a fulltime job with overtime for the Mother. Even a woman with an 80 IQ can see she can't be successful at a career or trade and as a mommy. There might be some hobbies or crafts, or other things, but those will have to be second priority for 30-40 years. So they choose. And because women see honors and wealth to the career spinster, not the homeschool heroine, they go there- even without hypergamy.

But in the future, say at Christmas, the Mommy and Daddy will be surrounded by thier children and grandchildren. The Spinster by her awards and diplomas. This is our dystopia. Out miserific vision.

Yes, they do not see their future.

We used tomhave wise women whomweren't that smart. Now we have educated, intelligent fools.

Oh, and there will never be "equal opportunity". Men cannot function as mothers. They lack the equipment for it. How many men get custody anyway?

The only "equal opportunity" is for women to take male roles. That requires emasculation, double standards, and force, and only results in facades of men in those roles. If it were truly equal there would be few women in the workforce. Some are more equal than others.

Equality in the context of complimentarity (the contributions are different) is the opposite of equality as if things were identical or interchangeable. Children suffer if they don't have both parents - a mom and a dad.

The modern world is so fixated on individual rights that it has lost the ability to see these questions ("greater opportunities for women") in the context of the effect on society as a whole. It's the same thing with gay marriage, Title VII, laws against adultery, etc.

I think it's so bad that even if you could prove to a modern liberal that pushing higher education for women hurts society as a whole, he would still advocate higher education for women.

My mistake. I meant Title IX. Society clearly has an interest in getting boys to play rough sports. Sports are a great thing and all, but from the standpoint of saving civilization it doesn't really matter all that much if girls play sports.

My former company had a policy of sponsoring people from Singapore to work for us for 18 months at our plant in the Bay Area. Subsidized by their government, because they wanted to attract biotech. They were some of the best workers.

What was mind boggling to me was: the women had Masters degrees in science. Yet they were very, very good administrators and dotters of I's and crossers of T's, but no interest in science itself or discovery of new things, testing new ideas. Here they were working at the pioneer of biotech, access to the cutting edge of science....and.....just wanted to make good money.

The other wacky thing was the married women, coming to America for 18 months. Without their husbands. With zero (and I mean absolutely zero) visits by either spouse during the entire 18 months. All of them. No interest in having children, and all they could talk about was networking and getting their next better (read higher paying) job.

I don't understand the absolutely mercernary mindset displayed by some cultures, to the exclusion of all other joys in life.

Basically, they've outsourced fecundity. Now imagine their surprise when the replacements do not share their culture, language, and values.

It's already happening with Filipinos and mainland Chinese. "NS for Singaporeans, jobs for FTs" is becoming a popular underground slogan on the street here. Five protests this year alone over immigration issues at Hong Lim Park. This is very Significant considering the famed political apathy of the average Singaporean.

What was mind boggling to me was: the women had Masters degrees in science. Yet they were very, very good administrators and dotters of I's and crossers of T's, but no interest in science itself or discovery of new things, testing new ideas. Here they were working at the pioneer of biotech, access to the cutting edge of science....and.....just wanted to make good money.

The other wacky thing was the married women, coming to America for 18 months. Without their husbands. With zero (and I mean absolutely zero) visits by either spouse during the entire 18 months. All of them. No interest in having children, and all they could talk about was networking and getting their next better (read higher paying) job.

I don't understand the absolutely mercernary mindset displayed by some cultures, to the exclusion of all other joys in life.

I have dark days in which I believe my country and culture is defective to the point it deserves to die.

"I don't understand the absolutely mercernary mindset displayed by some cultures, to the exclusion of all other joys in life. "

Can't speak for Singapore, but given that the Cultural Revolution and the eating of children is still a living memory for some, I think it partly explains the Chinese mindset for FOBs and ABCs. "Things can still go this badly", and "Never pledge allegiance if you can get away with it". Grasshopper has learned well.

The modern world is so fixated on individual rights that it has lost the ability to see these questions

The problem is not that but exactly what Vox identified, and if the Nobel Prize was sane and incorrupt he would get it.

Today, we have concern for "Now". I.e. Infinitesimal time preference. See the title of the post.

If the modern world was fixated on individual rights, it would grant the right to life to the next generation and ban abortion and even abortifacients, and embryo Frankenstein experiments. And allow smoking in public (as opposed to sex acts as in the public "gay pride" parades).

"Way back when", before some of you whipper-snappers were born, the Media spent 3 minutes on each network about Barbara Bush (the wife of the VP - who should care?) calling Geraldine Ferraro (Bush's opponent for VP) "something that rhymes with rich". Then complained when from then on they only got scripted sound bites.

At least in the heyday of MTV, the average attention span was the "radio" 3 minutes. The millenials, Y, and the current generation probably couldn't get through the over 3 minute segments of classic rock that Vox mentioned in a post.

A society that cannot pay attention for more than 3 minutes, and therefore has a "time preference" which can be measured in milliseconds without overflowing a 16 bit signed integer, ... is ... beyond ... even my ability to comprehend.

There are some who have unusual brain damage and literally can't remember anything "long term". Such is usually a rare effect of an unusual CVA (stroke). But it seems to be infectious and an pandemic.

No interest in having children, and all they could talk about was networking and getting their next better (read higher paying) job.

Self selected - they wouldn't have come here otherwise. However there was a book titled "The Female Eunuch", which was feminist, but I think the title applies to most women these days. Women denying their biology, or effectively with whatever means (contraception?) doing to themselves the equivalent of castration.

But women "castratti" will still never be able to sing baritone or basso profundo - except with a lot of electronic pitch shifting. It would still sound un-natural.

Harmony between the sexes is two part, with men standing on the bass and women causing treble, and neither jumping off the clef.

@Crowhill - point taken, but the question is the root cause. Is it "individual rights" as such, or the infinitesimal time preference? Or I will concede that it might be reduceable to "I have a right to immediate gratification and to not worry about the next microsecond!". (cold chill as I considered some recent distaff infected memes and don't want to look into that particular abyss as I think I know what will be staring back at me).

Very simple to fix, make education 100% privatized, 100% sex segregated and with 100% sex segregated teachers. Then we'd see how many parents would be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the little princes to get a degree in Media Studies.

Of course the problem is students would flock to the genuinely altruistic organizations (not phony tax subsidized NGOs) which means the churches.

Julian the Apostate"The impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well."

Government subsidization (coercive taxation) is a slieght of hand, a form of trickery to deny Christian benevolence, let the cards fall and see how many athiests and pagans would put their money where their mouth is.

Never forget that behind the women's rights movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's, feminism and the subsequent equalization, education and laborization of women stood elitist/capitalist interests which favored exactly one group: women at home could not be taxed, were instilling morals inimical to those interests in their children, were breeding and rearing comparatively healthy children and were a force to be reckoned with when attempting to introduce social changes more amenable to the parasitic interests of that "elite" and population group. Now, a century after these changes were initiated in the west, that same group has become best frenemy of the chinese, taiwanese, singaporeans ... and it can be seen in the developments taking place there, mentioned above.

Dear Mr Lee (and everyone out there who subscribes to this same mindset), I am a young single Singaporean female. I have a womb, and a degree. They co-exist quite harmoniously, and I would like it to remain that way. I will have my children when I do. Until then, please leave my educated ovaries alone.

Dear Singaporean bitch. Your degree is empty as is your womb. They co-exist melodiously - you need two for harmony. Your educated ovaries will be left alone as per your wish, but not for the reasons you think or want. You will have your children when you repent, or find a sperm donor clinic, or some idiot stupid enough to impregnate you.

I think I have pointed out but will repeat here. I don't mind women with Masters or even higher degrees. That will save effort and expense as homeschooling can extend the period before the offspring are smarter than Mommy (or Daddy which I would praise God for while maintaining discipline). It would help if they are doing differential equations, organic chemistry, biblical exegesis, moral theology, and VHDL before being distracted by the onset of puberty.

Aren't we, sort of, essentially, discussing why and why not "flood" as Noah is building the ark? Seriously. It is nice, but it is far too late. I suppose a postmortem while the patient dies is fine, mostly, but it won't help at this point without a huge move by Western governments throwing women out of school and work to a greater degree, but almost unanimously and universally. It won't happen. America will eventually be Mexican and Europe will be muslim. No war would stop it unless accompanied by a political seachange.

There simply isn't time, any other way, for the demographic survival of the civilized species. I remember speaking with the woman who cuts my hair, recently married. On children? Two, maybe, says she. Husband doesn't want more, either. They are expensive, and they hurt, I hear. Nail meet coffin. Typical, and that among men and women who are even foolish enough to actually attempt marriage, a vastly declining demographic.

@Doom - worse, I'm yet unmarried, but "sperm is cheap, eggs expensive". Yet women are the ones casting the gems before swine. OK, I can be a pig if they desire, but they don't want a family, children, etc.

(We need an Ilk Yenta service! Perhaps this might be better handled by Space Bunny as women seem to be more interested and inclined to such things which I originally would have written as "enslaving men").

Yet you make one critical error, the demographic survival of the civilized species.. The "culture of death" is NOT civilized. The demographic decline is the effect, the barbarity the cause.

America will be latinized - Mexico is only part (Our Lady of Guadaloupe pray for us - maybe that will end abortion!).. Europe has surrenderred demographically, so in a few hundred years (barring divine intervention, e.g. Pope Francis)

Satan has done a good job in keeping a low profile! Public Education has got to be, besides Capitalism and Communism, the easiest way to destroy Civilization. Socializing anything to the Entire Population has the inevitable affect of lowering it to the Lowest Common Denominator Possible.Educating women is not the biggest problem, it is the Public School Lie of enriching and improving Society by getting everyone into the same classroom. Egalitarianism would never have gotten off the ground if Society had kept its Natural Hierarchy.Previous generations had educated women also, but these were a select few, and they were still expected to become mothers and wives. Nothing ruins anything faster than popularity, because then it becomes common, too common for it to retain any value.Education is NOT a panacea for STUPIDITY! You can remove ignorance with education, but STUPIDITY thrives in an atmosphere that is based on collectivism and conformity. Public Education is FAR WORSE than IGNORANCE!